Landowners beat EPA

Clean Water Act victory for landowners!, Posted on April 13, 2015 Written by blog.pacificlegal.org

The 8th Cir Court of Appeals gave Pacific Legal Foun­da­tion a resound­ing vic­tory today in Hawkes v Corps.  A unan­i­mous three-judge panel held a Corps of Engi­neers’ Juris­dic­tional Deter­mi­na­tion (i.e.  wet­lands delin­eation) is imme­di­ately review­able in court and sub­ject to challenge.

For decades, the courts have used a legal fic­tion to deny cit­i­zens the right to chal­lenge cer­tain deter­mi­na­tions by the Corps and EPA under the Clean Water Act, like the oner­ous com­pli­ance order in Sack­ett. In that case, the EPA tried to com­pel the Sack­etts to “restore” alleged wet­lands on their half acre home lot (at a cost in excess of the lot’s value) or face penal­ties of $75,000 a day. The EPA com­pli­ance order was based on unproven alle­ga­tions that the Sack­etts’ prop­erty con­tained “nav­i­ga­ble waters” sub­ject to fed­eral juris­dic­tion. When the Sack­etts tried to chal­lenge the juris­dic­tion of the gov­ern­ment in court, the Ninth Cir­cuit Court of Appeals refused to allow it, rely­ing on the fic­tion that the com­pli­ance order did not impose any legal oblig­a­tions on the Sack­etts but was just advi­sory. For­tu­nately, all nine Jus­tices on the U.S. Supreme Court saw through the fic­tion and held the Sack­etts could seek judi­cial review of the agency’s claim of juris­dic­tion. How­ever, the High Court’s unan­i­mous deci­sion in Sack­ett has yet to be applied to Juris­dic­tional Deter­mi­na­tions issued by the Corps…until now!

In Hawkes v. Corps, Min­nesota busi­ness own­ers sought per­mis­sion to har­vest a swamp for peat moss used in land­scap­ing. The own­ers admit the swamp is a wet­land by def­i­n­i­tion. How­ever, under the Supreme Court deci­sion in Rapanos, only wet­lands that are adja­cent to a per­ma­nent water­body, or which have a “sig­nif­i­cant nexus” with tra­di­tional nav­i­ga­ble waters, are sub­ject to fed­eral juris­dic­tion under the Clean Water Act. When the Corps issued a Juris­dic­tional Deter­mi­na­tion assert­ing the swamp was cov­ered by the Act, with­out demon­strat­ing the req­ui­site con­nec­tion to tra­di­tional nav­i­ga­ble waters, Hawkes sought to chal­lenge the deter­mi­na­tion in court argu­ing the Sack­ett deci­sion requires judi­cial review of Juris­dic­tional Deter­mi­na­tions which are issued in the hun­dreds each year by the Corps nation­wide. In a deci­sion that can only be called disin­gen­u­ous, the trial court ruled for the gov­ern­ment hold­ing Hawkes had three options: (1) aban­don the project and, per­haps, the busi­ness; (2) seek an arguably unnec­es­sary fed­eral per­mit at a dev­as­tat­ing cost of over $270,000; or (3) go for­ward with­out a per­mit risk­ing civil fines of up to $75,000 per day and/or crim­i­nal sanc­tions includ­ing impris­on­ment.  PLF appealed the case to the 8th Circuit.

In a strong rebuke of the Corps, today, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held, rely­ing on Sack­ett, that Juris­dic­tional Deter­mi­na­tions are final agency actions sub­ject to imme­di­ate chal­lenge in court.  Here are some note­wor­thy excerpts:

The pro­hib­i­tive costs, risk, and delay of these alter­na­tives to imme­di­ate judi­cial review evi­dence a trans­par­ently obvi­ous lit­i­ga­tion strat­egy: by leav­ing appel­lants with no imme­di­ate judi­cial review and no ade­quate alter­na­tive rem­edy, the Corps will achieve the result its local offi­cers desire, aban­don­ment of the peat min­ing project, with­out hav­ing to test whether its expan­sive asser­tion of juris­dic­tion — rejected by one of their own com­mand­ing offi­cers on admin­is­tra­tive appeal — is con­sis­tent with the Supreme Court’s lim­it­ing deci­sion in Rapanos. For decades, the Corps has “delib­er­ately left vague” the “def­i­n­i­tions used to make juris­dic­tional deter­mi­na­tions,” leav­ing its Dis­trict offices free to treat as waters of the United States “adja­cent wet­lands” that “are con­nected to the nav­i­ga­ble water by flood­ing, on aver­age, once every 100 years,” or are sim­ply “within 200 feet of a trib­u­tary.” Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 727–28, quot­ing a GAO report. The Court’s deci­sion in Sack­ett reflected con­cern that fail­ing to per­mit imme­di­ate judi­cial review of asser­tions of CWA juris­dic­tion would leave reg­u­lated par­ties unable, as a prac­ti­cal mat­ter, to chal­lenge those asser­tions. The Court con­cluded that was con­trary to the APA’s pre­sump­tion of judi­cial review. “[T]here is no rea­son to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of reg­u­lated par­ties into ‘vol­un­tary com­pli­ance’ with­out the oppor­tu­nity for judi­cial review — even judi­cial review of the ques­tion whether the reg­u­lated party is within the EPA’s juris­dic­tion.” 132 S. Ct. at 1374.

In our view, a prop­erly prag­matic analy­sis of ripeness and final agency action prin­ci­ples com­pels the con­clu­sion that an Approved JD is sub­ject to imme­di­ate judi­cial review. The Corps’s asser­tion that the Revised JD is merely advi­sory and has no more effect than an envi­ron­men­tal consultant’s opin­ion ignores real­ity. “[I]n real­ity it has a pow­er­ful coer­cive effect.” Ben­nett, 520 U.S. at 169. Absent imme­di­ate judi­cial review, the imprac­ti­cal­ity of oth­er­wise obtain­ing review, com­bined with “the uncer­tain reach of the Clean Water Act and the dra­con­ian penal­ties imposed for the sort of vio­la­tions alleged in this case … leaves most prop­erty own­ers with lit­tle prac­ti­cal alter­na­tive but to dance to the EPA’s [or to the Corps’] tune.” “In a nation that val­ues due process, not to men­tion pri­vate prop­erty, such treat­ment is unthink­able.” Sack­ett, 132 S. Ct. at 1375 (Alito, J., con­cur­ring). We con­clude that an Approved JD is a final agency action and the issue is ripe for judi­cial review under the APA.

One of the judges added this insight­ful observation: In my view, the Court in Sack­ett was con­cerned with just how dif­fi­cult and con­fus­ing it can be for a landowner to pre­dict whether or not his or her land falls within CWA jurisdiction—a thresh­old deter­mi­na­tion that puts the admin­is­tra­tive process in motion. This is a unique aspect of the CWA; most laws do not require the hir­ing of expert con­sul­tants to deter­mine if they even apply to you or your prop­erty. This juris­dic­tional deter­mi­na­tion was pre­cisely what the Court deemed review­able in Sack­ett. See Sack­ett, 132 S. Ct. at 1374–75 (Gins­burg, J., con­cur­ring). Accord­ingly, I con­cur in the judg­ment of the court.

For the first time since the incep­tion of the Clean Water Act (1972), overzeal­ous gov­ern­ment bureau­crats can be held imme­di­ately account­able in court for their erro­neous asser­tions of fed­eral con­trol over pri­vate wet­lands and other waters.  This lev­els the play­ing field for landown­ers who have been at the mercy of over­reach­ing gov­ern­ment for far too long.

Related Posts

• Far-reaching “Waters of the United States” rule could be the most sig­nif­i­cant EPA reg­u­la­tion you have never heard about: opinion
• Prop­erty Rights at Stake in EPA’s Water Power Grab
• “Waters of the United States” — the ulti­mate power grab
• A vast land grab to ‘pro­tect’ water
• Supreme Court weighs review of Army Corps’ juris­dic­tion decisions
  Filed Under: Property Rights, Water Rights
  http://agenda21news.com/2015/04/clean-water-act-victory-for-landowners/#more-5388